Final Report Final draft Oct 19 - Public Engagement · This review of websites has been followed by...

Taking Stock report: www.publicengagement.ac.uk 1

Taking Stock A review of University Public

Engagement activity

Final report: December 2015

This report captures the findings from a review of data about university public engagement from

various sources, including university websites and monitoring data. Analysis of this data provides a

comparison with the baseline established in a comparable review conducted in 2009.

The report was prepared for the NCCPE by Fiona Hill

The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement The National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement’s vision is of a higher education sector making a vital, strategic and valued contribution to 21st century society through its public engagement activity. We are working to help support universities to improve, value and increase the quality of their public engagement and embed it into their core practice. The NCCPE is funded by the UK Higher Education Councils, Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust, and has been hosted by the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England since it was established in 2008. www.publicengagement.ac.uk

http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/


Contents

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 3

KEY FINDINGS ...................................................................................................................................... 4

General trends ................................................................................................................................ 4

Who universities are working with ‘beyond academia’.................................................................. 4

How PE / engagement features in university corporate strategies ................................................ 5

Organisational support for PE ......................................................................................................... 5

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE FINDINGS .............................................................................................. 5

THE DATA IN MORE DEPTH ................................................................................................................. 7

1. Public engagement strategies ..................................................................................................... 7

2. University strategic priorities .................................................................................................... 10

3. Public engagement in 2014 ....................................................................................................... 12

4. Public engagement partners and audiences ............................................................................. 13

5. Public engagement target sectors ............................................................................................ 15

6. Disciplines involved ................................................................................................................... 17

7. Organisation of public engagement .......................................................................................... 18

8. Public engagement activities .................................................................................................... 20

CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................... 25

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 26

APPENDIX: Data collection ................................................................................................................ 27


INTRODUCTION The aim of this project has been to collect data about university public engagement from various

sources: university websites, HEIF strategies1 and annual monitoring reports, HEBCI2 survey data,

and an examination of the successful RCUK Catalysts for Public Engagement bids. Analysis of this

data provides a comparison with the baseline established in a comparable database created in 2009

which collected a variety of sources of data to reveal how universities were reporting on their public

engagement activity.

The first part of the project involved collecting data from the websites of 80 universities (see

Appendix for the sample and sampling methodology), using the same database fields as in 2009, and

using the same search terms.

As before, there are various caveats: collection of the data involves an element of subjectivity;

websites are constantly being changed and not all are up-to-date; the quality of the information

varies not only between institutions but also between departments within them. For the purposes

of this enquiry ‘public engagement’ (PE) and ‘community engagement’ (CE) have been taken to cover

an HEI’s public-facing activities informed by the NCCPEs definition of Public Engagement:

"Public engagement describes the myriad of ways in which the activity and benefits of higher

education and research can be shared with the public. Engagement is by definition a two-

way process, involving interaction and listening, with the goal of generating mutual

benefit3."

This review of websites has been followed by an examination of the HEIs’ HEIF strategies, submitted

in 2011, alongside their 2014 Annual Monitoring Statements, which reported on their HEIF-funded

activity. The latest HEBCI survey data from 2015 have also been used to collect further information

about business and community interactions (BCI).

Some data were directly taken from the source (e.g. the list of partners given in their HEIF returns;

the HEI’s ranking of their benefit to partners in their HEBCIS return). Other entries involved

judgements / interpretations by the researcher (e.g. analysing strategic plans to ascertain the

implicit or explicit rationale for their engagement work). It is worth providing a health warning

here. The data from the three sources are often contradictory within an institution; this perhaps

represents the fact that it has been produced by different people; for example the HEIF strategies

have been written by (in most cases) someone from the HEI’s business, enterprise or research and

development teams who may not be fully aware of, or directing the strategy of, the public and

community side, but are responding in the light of the emphasis of HEIF funding to support

knowledge-based interactions between HEIs and the wider world which lead to economic and social

benefit.

1 Higher Education Innovation Funding (HEIF) is provided by HEFCE to support and develop a broad range of knowledge-based interactions between universities and the wider world which result in economic and social benefit to the UK. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/kess/heif/ 2 The annual HE Business and Community Interaction Survey (HE-BCI) examines the exchange of knowledge between universities and the wider world. http://www.hefce.ac.uk/kess/hebci/ 3 http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/explore-it/what-public-engagement

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/kess/heif/

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/kess/hebci/

http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/explore-it/what-public-engagement


With these provisos we are confident that useful analysis can be done. Many of the trends and

insights identified below are similar to findings emerging from other reviews of public engagement,

for instance the Factors Affecting Public Engagement by Researchers survey conducted in 2015.

KEY FINDINGS The following trends and insights have emerged from our analysis of the data

General trends

From both the website evidence and the HEBCI survey data, public and community engagement

is now much more generally embedded as a part of the remit across the institutions and there

seem to be strong institutional attempts to engage with the public in a more coordinated

manner, though this remains generally at the level of offering opportunities rather than a two-

way exchange.

Generally the evidence suggests that there is significantly more engagement activity underway –

or being reported. There appear to have been particularly significant increases in PE activity in

health / medicine, in law and in history.

The percentage of HEIs which include public/community engagement in their corporate

strategies has risen from 62% in 2009 to 74% in 2014.

All bar one of the 80 HEIs surveyed indicate in their HEBCI survey responses that they have some

level of PE or CE plan in place, which is a change from 2009. The evidence suggests that most

have a strategy developed but not fully in place.

The proportion of HEIs with a full public/community engagement strategy in place has doubled

from 16% in 2009 to 33% in 2014 according to the HEBCI data.

Within the HEBCI data there have been increases in engagement activities relating to the

category ‘public access to knowledge’, with the most noticeable ones in the use of new media

(up from 47% to 80%) and the mention of festivals (up from 51% to 69%). In 2009 this related

mainly to podcasts and video/audio lectures. Now all institutions are engaged in social media –

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, etc. There has been an increase in blogs, as well as

continued use of audio/video.

Almost all HEIs have news and events or a link on the home page, and 44% offer information

about research and events, or a direct link for the public to access more information about their

engagement activity. HEIs seem to be making an effort to welcome the public and respond to

their potential interest in engaging with them. There is less visible evidence of the ‘ivory tower’.

There are blogs and twitter feeds where the public can access information about research.

Inspection of the evidence suggests that the activities are more centrally coordinated, e.g.

lectures, culture or sciences cafes, arts events, and from the websites it is now more difficult to

identify individual subject involvement. In 2009 perhaps these stood out as it was individual

departments or individual academics who set up outward-facing activities.

Who universities are working with ‘beyond academia’

The HEBCI Survey data demonstrate a range of institutional level activities, for example links

with local voluntary organisations to support social enterprise, public arts events, partnerships

with sporting or cultural organisations, and public use of facilities. The majority of HEIs indicate

that the institution works with its community and has well developed partnership arrangements

with local and regional bodies.


The greatest proportion of HEIF funding is used to benefit business and industry, with 54% of the

funding directed at Local Economic Partnerships and businesses. This is to be expected, given

the focus of the fund. The next two largest beneficiaries are Local Authorities (14%) and Health

and Social work (13%). 15% is invested in working with schools, the media, museums, arts and

cultural organisations and civil society groups.

How PE / engagement features in university corporate strategies

The focus of engagement in the university strategic plans has changed in the intervening period,

reflecting the change in government and funding priorities. Student satisfaction and retention,

teaching and learning enhancement (notably including employer engagement in curriculum

development and work-ready skills), and employability now have much more emphasis, while

working with local, national and international partners has also increased dramatically. A major

feature of the strategic plans is global working.

The most notable decrease as an area of strategic priority is in lifelong learning, caused

presumably by the withdrawal of funding for this. This has dropped from being a priority in 34%

of plans in 2009 to 11% in 2015.

The ways that university strategies align with government policy priorities show little change,

apart from an increasing emphasis on sustainability (up from 50% to 82.5%); on volunteering (up

from 23% to 51%) and health (up from 11% to 26%).

Public Engagement with Science was a relatively low priority in 2009 (only mentioned in 2% of

strategies). This figure has risen to 3.75%. ‘Contributing to Public Life’ has risen from 9% to

16%, but ‘Supporting Stronger Communities’ has fallen from 22% to 15%.

Organisational support for PE

Although 74% of the institutions surveyed include engagement in their corporate strategic plans,

only 19 institutions have KPIs for PE in these (slightly less than in 2009), with the KPIs tending to

relate to metrics such as numbers attending events or numbers of staff involved. From the

websites it would appear that few institutions seem to have a dedicated public engagement

team or office. Some departments have a named contact for PE, but in other HEIs responsibility

for PE or CE is tied in with either communications or employability or research. However,

according to the HEBCI survey returns, 72 out of the 80 claim to have an internal point of contact

for BCI activities.

SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE FINDINGS This survey provides clear evidence that higher education institutions are becoming more outward

facing and that public engagement is now an increasingly established part of their remit. More

broadly, the survey suggests HEIs are viewing their economic and social impact more holistically,

with recognition of the social and cultural benefits they generate as well as the economic ones.

However, the work is still relatively immature.

Many HEIs do not have fully developed plans and strategies for PE, and relatively few have

KPIs for their engagement activities in their corporate strategies.

Surprisingly, given the fact that PE has become more prevalent, there are relatively few

institutional PE contacts or departments, but this appears to be balanced by an expectation

of the involvement of more staff members.


There is much more evidence of more traditional forms of ‘inspirational’ engagement, rather

than two-way exchange.

There is evidence that recent policy priorities – such as impact and student employability – have

created very significant opportunities for embedding engagement activity both within research and

teaching. It is also clear that such activity is vulnerable to future shifts of emphasis – evidenced most

vividly in the significant retreat from lifelong learning noted since 2009.


THE DATA IN MORE DEPTH The rest of this report provides more detailed analysis under the following headings:

1. Public engagement strategies

2. University strategic priorities

3. Public engagement in 2014

4. Public engagement partners and audiences

5. Public engagement target sectors

6. Disciplines involved

7. Organisation of public engagement

8. Public engagement activities

1. Public engagement strategies

There is evidence of culture change between 2009 and 2014, in that there is acknowledgement in

most of the institutional strategic plans of the part that HEIs have to play in their region, e.g. social,

cultural and economic contribution, and that engagement is an important part of the HEIs’ remit.

The percentage of HEIs which include engagement in their corporate strategies has risen from 62%

in 2009 to 74% in 2014. Russell Group members (with the possible exception of Liverpool where the

strategy is not publicly available) all include it. Although the HEIF strategies are largely business-

orientated, some do mention public or community engagement (eg Durham, which expresses its

continued commitment to making a major impact locally through its community engagement and

outreach programmes and via its Experience Durham programmes).

Although the website evidence is not always there, all bar one of the 80 HEIs surveyed indicate in

their HEBCI survey responses that they have some level of PE or CE plan in place. How far the PE/CE

strategy is developed is indicated with 1 being ‘no strategic plan for it in place’, through to 5

meaning that a strategic plan has been ‘developed and implemented as a result of an inclusive

process across the whole HEI’. The evidence suggests that most have a strategy developed but not

fully in place.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

PE mentioned in HEIFstrategy

PE in Strategic Plan HEBCI some level of PEplan in place

COMPARISON OF PE STRATEGIES

2009

2014


The HEBCI survey asks HEIs to comment on their level of strategic planning for PE and CE from ‘no

plan in place’ to ‘full implementation of a plan after an inclusive process across the HEI’. Clearly

there has been a shift towards more fully implemented plans.

The number with a full plan implemented and the whole HEI involved has risen since 2009, though

interestingly there are a number who claim in the HEBCI data that their level of plan has fallen. The

survey does not reveal whether this is reflected in the differing personnel completing the survey

data or whether institutional focus has changed. The level of business engagement plans also show

a similar pattern.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

1. No strategicplan in place

2. Between 1and 3

3. Strategicplan

developed andonly paritallyimplemented

4. Between 3and 5

5. Strategicplan

developed andimplementedas a result ofan inclusive

process acrossthe HEI

Public engagement plans (HEBCIS)

2009

2014

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

No

. of

HEI

s

Level of PE Plan (HEBCIS)

PE Plan 2009

PE Plan 2014


0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

No

. of

HEI

sLevel of Business Plan (HEBCIS)

Business Plan 2009

Business Plan 2014

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5

No

. of

HEI

s

Level of Business and PE Plans compared (HEBCIS)

PE Plan 2009

PE Plan 2014

Business Plan 2009

Business Plan 2014


2. University strategic priorities

The focus of engagement in the university strategic plans has also changed in the intervening period,

reflecting the change in government and funding priorities. The most notable decrease is in

traditional lifelong learning, caused presumably by the withdrawal of funding for this, and in

community capacity building.

Student satisfaction and retention, teaching and learning enhancement (notably including employer

engagement in curriculum development and work-ready skills), and employability have much more

emphasis (Students at the Heart of the System, 2011), while working with local, national and

international partners has also increased dramatically.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Strategic Priorities

Year 2009 %

Year 2014 %

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Student Satisfaction Employability Enhancing T&L

Increased strategic focus

Year 2009 %

Year 2014 %


Much less noticeable are the changes in policy alignments, apart from sustainability, perhaps

reflecting the Government’s commitment to sustainable development, which shows a 30% increase;

and student volunteering, which has become an important part of the student experience, helping

to develop students for the workplace (Students at the Heart of the System, 2011). Public

engagement with science still remains a low strategic priority, although there is evidence of activity

within the web sites.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Policy Alignments (%)

Year 2009

Year 2014


3. Public engagement in 2014

From the website evidence and also from the HEBCI survey data, public and community engagement

are now much more generally embedded across the institutions with more cross-institutional and

cross-disciplinary working (eg Nottingham’s Pervasive Media project), and there seem to be

significant institutional attempts to engage with the public, though this remains generally at the

level of offering opportunities, more than inviting two-way exchange. The latter is an area which the

successful RCUK-funded Catalyst for Public Engagement projects4 sought to address, and which the

follow up Catalyst Seed Fund projects5 are also tackling.

The websites show that concerts, exhibitions, festivals, and other events are open to the public.

Some institutions hold science and other ‘cafes’, where there are opportunities for discussion and

exchange of views. HEIs have found many different and interesting ways of engaging with their

communities. Examples of the variety of activities are UCL’s Bright Club (where researchers become

stand-up comedians) and the LABS (Let’s All Benefit from Science) project at Sunderland. There are

interesting partnerships, e.g. the Playing for Time Theatre co-staging plays with prisoners and

undergraduates at Winchester, and the Hive partnership6 at Worcester with the County Council.

Southampton Solent arranges its EcoErnie recycling and rubbish collecting project with the

community and church. Oxford Brookes is involved in Oxgrow, a community edible garden scheme,

while ‘Growhampton’ (Roehampton) is part of the London Orchard project. Some activities, such as

co-generation of knowledge, are very difficult to identify, though this seems to take place most often

in health subjects, where researchers increasingly seek to involve patients. A more reliable source

of data about such activities is likely to be found in the recently published REF Impact case studies7.

Almost all HEIs have news and events or a link on the home page, and over 40% offer good

information about research and events, or a direct link for the public. Virtually all use social media.

HEIs seem to be making an effort to welcome the public, and there is less visible evidence of the

‘ivory tower’. There are blogs and twitter feeds where the public can access information about

research. Inspection of the evidence suggests that the activities are more centrally coordinated, e.g.

lectures, culture or sciences cafes, arts events, and from the websites it is now more difficult to

identify individual subject involvement; in 2009 perhaps these stood out as it was individual

departments or individual academics who set up outward-facing activities in the absence of

university wide policies and strategies.

4 http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/work-with-us/current-projects/catalysts-project 5 http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/work-with-us/current-projects/catalyst-seed-fund 6 http://www.worcester.ac.uk/your-home/the-hive.html 7 The NCCPE is currently reviewing the 6640 published case studies for evidence of the extent and nature of the public engagement activity that was reported

http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/work-with-us/current-projects/catalysts-project

http://www.publicengagement.ac.uk/work-with-us/current-projects/catalyst-seed-fund

http://www.worcester.ac.uk/your-home/the-hive.html

http://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/


4. Public engagement partners and audiences

Similarly the HEBCI Survey data indicate a range of corporate activities, for example links with local

voluntary organisations to support social enterprise, public arts events, partnerships with sporting or

cultural organisations, and public use of facilities. The majority of HEIs indicate that the institution

works with its community and has well developed partnership arrangements with local and regional

bodies. There has not been much change from 2009; all HEIs indicate some level of engagement in

both years, with marginal increases in 2014 in the degree of this.

The HEIF (Higher Education Innovation Funding) is intended ‘to support and develop a broad range

of knowledge-based interactions between universities and the wider world which result in economic

and social benefit to the UK’ and the HEIs mainly use their HEIF funding to engage with business and

industry. The chart below indicates the main sectors with which they work. Partnerships with the

LEPs are a strong influencing factor with much of the HEIF and business-orientated work, though a

number of HEIs complain that the LEPs are not sufficiently established yet to know how successful

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1. Noengagement with

communityregeneration

schemes, apartfrom individual

efforts

2. Between 1 and3

3. Somerepresentation ofthe HEP on localpartnerships at

seniormanagementlevel, but with

limitedimplementation

capability

4. Between 3 and5

5. Active andcreative

engagement withcommunity

programmes,with the HEP

taking aleadership

position andapplying a wide

variety ofresources

Partnerships with local/regional bodies

2009

2014


these partnerships will be. Security, especially cyber and food security, is a recurrent theme, and

many are involved with climate change and renewable energy partnership projects.

Lifelong learning has now dropped out of HEIF partnerships, while the LEP is largest area after

business partnerships. Many are now specifically targeting SMEs, though the HEIF monitoring

statements report that the national financial situation can make this difficult. It is interesting to see

that SMEs and Social Enterprise are now being identified as separate areas of engagement. This is

presumably a response to the Witty Report.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Pri

vate

ind

ivid

ual

s

Civ

il So

ciet

y G

rou

ps

Edu

cati

on

Sch

oo

ls

Life

lon

g Le

arn

ing

Art

s/cu

ltu

re

Mu

seu

ms

etc

Spo

rts

Hea

lth

/so

cial

wo

rk

LEP

Bu

sin

ess

Me

dia

Loca

l au

tho

riti

es

Nat

Go

vern

men

t

Distribution of HEIF Partners

Series1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

HEIF Partners %

2009

2014


5. Public engagement target sectors

It is noticeable that there have not been major changes in the sectors with which HEIs have most

engaged in the HEBCI surveys, although ‘other’ has decreased, perhaps indicating a narrower field of

partnerships. What is also reflected in the HEIF strategies and Annual Monitoring Statements is that

the level of engagement with health authorities and NHS has been reduced.

The HEIF data show the spread of the main target sectors to be:

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Civic securityauthorities

Education NHS andhealth

Authorities

Other Transportauthorities

(publicservice)

Sectors most engaged with (HEBCIS)

2009

2014

19%

8%

15%

25%

4%

20%

2%4% 3%

HEIF Target Sectors

Energy

Business & Professional

Advanced engineering

Health Related

Sport, leisure, tourism

Creative/digital

Transport/logistics

Construction/infrastructure

Land-based/agri science


It is interesting that in the HEBCI survey data there have been minor changes in the way which

institutions rank the benefits to their partners. The survey asks HEIs to rank their partners/clients in

their ‘third stream priorities/aims’ in terms of benefits delivered (with 1 being the highest).

Although non-commercial, social, community and cultural organisations remain broadly in the third

place in the rankings, there have been shifts in that the number of HEIs putting these in first or

second place has marginally increased, while the number ranking business or public sector as

number 1 has fallen slightly.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Commercialprivate business

Non-commercialsocial, community

and culturalorganisations

Other Public sector(commercial andnon-commercial)

Ranking of Benefits to Partners 2014

1

2

3

4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Commercialprivate business

Non-commercialsocial, community

and culturalorganisations

Other Public sector(commercial andnon-commercial)

Ranking of Benefits to Partners 2009

1

2

3

4


6. Disciplines involved

The evidence of PE across the various disciplines is much harder to identify in the 2014 survey than

in 2009 both from the website information and from the HEIF data, perhaps because previously the

individual departments or personnel stood out where they carried out engagement work. For

example, Imperial College’s Mathematics in Medicine engagement project illustrates the cross-

disciplinary way in which subject areas are working. There is now a more corporate approach to

working with the public and community and activities are more coordinated both centrally and

within departments. It has therefore been difficult to draw any meaningful comparisons about this.

Although there is little about public engagement with science in corporate strategies, the evidence

from the websites suggests that the STEM subjects and medical disciplines are the areas which are

the most active. A large number of institutions base their outreach work with schools around

scientific workshops and summer schools, and there are family events organised around the

sciences. Medicine and health-related subjects seem to be where there is most two-way

engagement, with patients contributing to research and partnership work with the NHS. There has

also been a 19% increase in the law discipline, although this is offering a service rather than

interaction, with student law clinics open to the public. The slight drop in mention of creative

activities is surprising, given that there is plenty of PE around the visual arts. Other discipline areas,

such as history (up by 23%), are involved in public lectures, while the limited number of non-

accredited courses are often foreign language ones.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Me

dic

ine

Sub

ject

alli

ed t

o…

Bio

logi

cal s

cien

ces

Ve

teri

nar

y

Ph

ysic

al s

cie

nce

s

Mat

hs/

com

pu

ter…

Engi

nee

rin

g

Tech

no

logi

es

Arc

hit

ect

ure

Soci

al s

tud

ies

Law

Bu

sin

ess

Mas

s co

mm

un

icat

ion

s

Lin

guis

tics

, cla

ssic

s

Euro

pe

an la

ngu

age

s

East

ern

lan

guag

es

His

tori

cal

Cre

ativ

e

Edu

cati

on

Subject-based PE Activity (web data) %

2009

2014


7. Organisation of public engagement

Although 74% of the institutions surveyed include engagement in their corporate strategic plans,

only 19 institutions have KPIs for PE in these (slightly less than in 2009), with the KPIs tending to

relate to metrics such as numbers attending events or numbers of staff involved. This may be

explained by the HEBCI survey returns, which indicate that almost all have a strategy for community

engagement in place. These are not generally publicly available on the websites and therefore it

may be that they include performance indicators. In their HEIF strategies, however, 73 HEIs say that

they have KPIs to monitor their HEIF activity. By no means all specify what these are, but the two

most common are IP activity and new partnerships. Again, the majority has responded to the

question in the HEBCI survey about proposals for how to measure impact, which perhaps illustrates

how institutions have thought about measuring engagement activity. Suggestions in this space

include the use of case studies, numbers of volunteers and amount of student engagement, and

social media. Bath Spa suggests using policy impact, while Northampton uses a Social Impact Matrix

which has been developed by their researchers. A number of institutions make explicit links

between their public engagement activities and the so called ‘impact agenda’ for research, e.g.

Sheffield where the role of the PE team is to help researchers to engage the public in their research,

or Exeter where there are ‘impact awards’ for PE.

From the websites surprisingly few institutions seem to have a separate, dedicated, stand-alone

public engagement office such as the University of Bristol. A number of universities have public

engagement teams, but these take interestingly different forms and sit in different areas of the

university. A significant number are focused almost exclusively on PE with research, while others sit

in communications, careers, the vice chancellor’s office, or in social responsibility sections. For

example, in the University of Derby there is an Employment and Community Engagement manager,

Sheffield has a Public Engagement and Impact Team, while Southampton has a Public Engagement

with Research team. Some departments, too, offer a named contact for their PE activities.

However, according to the HEBCI survey returns, 72 out of the 80 claim to have an internal point of

contact for BCI activities. 45 out of the 80 surveyed have a brokerage gateway on their websites,

mainly for business but some including public engagement, and for some the entry point for

enquiries seems to be through media and communications, but it might be useful if HEIs offered a

more publicly visible point of contact for their business and public engagement activities on the

websites.

From the HEIF strategies it would appear that the main help for incentivising staff in engagement is

training and CPD. 19 out of the 80 indicate that there is some form of career progression, while 17

allow time for staff to carry out business or community work. According to the HEBCI question

about the ‘maximum number of days per year academics may carry out private activities of

engagement with business or community’, members of staff are given a range from 46 days at

Brunel and 50 days at Northampton, down to no days at other institutions. Over half claim that the

incentives are greater than the barriers facing staff in engagement activities. Most indicate that staff

members are given financial or other rewards for IP generated. The successful Catalyst bids all

include staff rewards as a strategy to further embed PE.


Comparison with the 2009 data suggests that staff perceptions of incentives have gone down. In the

HEIF strategies and annual monitoring statements, the greatest barrier to (mainly) business

engagement remains the current economic situation, which perhaps explains the fall.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1. Barriersoutweigh any

incentivesoffered

2. Between 1and 3

3. Someincentives in

place, but withsome barriers

remaining

4. Between 3and 5

5. Strongincentives in

place

Staff Incentives (HEBCIS)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1. Barriersoutweigh any

incentivesoffered

2. Between 1and 3

3. Someincentives in

place, butwith some

barriersremaining

4. Between 3and 5

5. Strongincentives in

place

Staff Incentives (HEBCIS)

2009

2014


8. Public engagement activities

There have been slight increases in the engagement activities relating to public access to knowledge,

but the most noticeable one is in the area of new media. In 2009 this related mainly to podcasts and

video/audio lectures. Now all institutions are engaged in social media – Youtube, Facebook, Twitter,

Pinterest, etc. There has been an increase in blogs, as well as continued use of audio/video. In this

way, public access to what is going on has increased significantly.

HEIs continue to be involved in other outward facing activities. The HEIF data as might be expected

lean heavily towards continuing professional development (CPD), applied and collaborative research

work.

Volunteering is interesting in that it has always been a part of the outward- facing activities of an

HEI, and there has not been a huge change between 2009 and 2014, but it has increased in strategic

importance presumably because of employability and the student experience policy foci.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Festivals PublicLectures

Outreachevents

Exhibitions New Media

Public Access to Knowledge

2009

2014

0102030405060708090

2014 Engagement Activities (Web)

2014


The CPD courses tend to be aimed at further training and workforce development, but, although

traditional lifelong learning as an area of public engagement activity has reduced considerably,

according to the HEBCI data there are still extra mural courses for the public, in addition to public

lectures. These are not easy to locate on the websites, but most of those offered are non-accredited

language courses. Other traditional lifelong learning courses have been replaced by activities which

fall under the PE banner, such as workshops and events, as well as public lectures aimed at more

general audiences. As observed by one institution, ‘Academics also contribute to a range of free

workshops for local community and other organisations which are more focused than public lectures

but not income generating activities which could otherwise be classified under short courses/CPD’ .

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Engagement Activities (Web %)

2009

2014

Continuous work-based

learning 18%

Distance learning (online course

content) 22%

Extra-mural courses for the public

17%

None of the above

0%

Short bespoke courses at business premises

21%

Short bespoke courses for business on

campus 22%

CPD Courses - HEBCIS


There has been little change in the courses offered in the HEBCI Survey data. The largest increase is

in the distance learning courses offered.

Employer engagement in the curriculum has increased along with the focus on employability and

skills development. HEIs are under pressure to make the curriculum relevant to economic needs,

and to ensure that students develop appropriate skills for the workplace.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Continuouswork-based

learning

Distancelearning(onlinecourse

content)

Extra-muralcourses forthe public

None Shortbespoke

courses atbusinesspremises

Shortbespoke

courses forbusiness on

campus

Courses (HEBCIS)

2009

2014

0%

5%

28%

41%

26%

Curriculum Involvement of Employers

1. No active involvement

2. Between 1 and 3

3. Moderate activeinvolvement

4. Between 3 and 5

5. Active involvement


Along with this there has been an increase in service learning and work placements for students,

with some courses including a mandatory placement. In most HEIs, however, this is still encouraged

rather than required, though interestingly no institution reports that no placements are arranged.

The HEBCI survey reports on the way placements are organised:

There has not been a great change since 2009 in arrangement of student placements. The main

change has been a shift from individual school/department organisation to more centrally arranged

placements.

21%

25%

0%

7%

15%

24%

8%

Student Placement Arrangement

Ad hoc betweenstudents and businesses

Individual school ordepartment

None are currentlyarranged

Other

Via a central placementdepartment

Via careers service

0102030405060708090

Arrangement of Student Placements (HEBCIS)

2009

2014


With regard to membership of Governing Bodies, the proportion of representation from social,

community and cultural groups remains unchanged since 2009, while the proportion of members

from public sector organisations has gone down, in contrast to membership from commercial

organisations. This may also reflect the observations made by many HEIs that their work with bodies

such as health authorities has diminished.


CONCLUSION

This review indicates that higher education institutions have become more outward facing and that

public engagement has become an acknowledged part of the their remit. In the period between

2009 and 2014 there has been a shift from local, individual proponents within departments towards

cross-institutional strategic approaches. It might seem surprising, therefore, given the fact that PE

has become more embedded as a theme across the whole institutions, that there are not more

named institutional PE contacts or departments, but it may be that this reflects that there is a move

to place responsibility across the whole institution.

That HEIs have not all developed their plans and strategies fully reflects the increasing pressures

from different sources. The changes in emphasis, such as in student employability and employer

engagement, indicate that they are trying to respond to changes in policy and funding. This has

meant that volunteering, for example, has now become an important element of the student

experience, acknowledged in the corporate strategies. Engagement with employers in curriculum

development is again directed at the student as consumer and ‘the work-ready student’.

There are many corporate engagement opportunities for the public in terms of public lectures,

access to facilities and outreach events. Website information to these is more easily obtained and

the public can follow research through social media. Services such as student legal advice clinics and

health advice clinics have been opened to the public. Institutions have found many interesting ways

of engaging with the public, some one-off and others on-going. Many institutions plan to include PE

in their promotion or reward criteria for academics (evident from the HEIF data, web data and

Catalyst bids) but at the same time there is less evidence of the individual enthusiast working with

the public and more activity is organised centrally or departmentally.

Finally, from this study, it would appear that HEIs are committed and working towards integration of

community and public engagement into the modus operandi of the institution. We have found clear

evidence of this trend. That this has not happened fully perhaps represents the pressures, financial

and governmental, which they are under. The fate of lifelong learning provides a reminder of how

vulnerable such developments are to changes in policy and funding. It will be interesting to review

in future years how the roll out of research impact agenda accelerates or diverts the trends

identified in this review.


REFERENCES

Data sources

Catalyst Fund bids, RCUK, http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/pe/catalysts/ , 2011 (unpublished)

Higher Education Business and Community Interaction Survey, HEFCE, 2015,

www.hefce.ac.uk/kess/hebci/ , (unpublished)

Higher Education Innovation Fund Institutional Strategies, HEFCE, 2011

Higher Education Innovation Fund Annual Monitoring Statements, HEFCE, 2014 (unpublished)

Other key documents

Browne Report: Securing a Sustainable Future for HE. Independent Review of Higher Education

Funding & Student Finance, October 2010

Encouraging a British Invention Revolution: Sir Andrew Witty’s Review of Universities and Growth, October 2013 Governing for the Future. The opportunities for mainstreaming sustainable development, Sustainable Development Commission, 2011 Higher education White Paper - students at the heart of the system, From: Department for Business,

Innovation & Skills, First published: 28 June 2011

Lambert Review of Business-University Collaboration, December 2003 Mainstreaming sustainable development – The Government’s vision and what this means in Practice, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, February 2011 Professor Sir Tim Wilson DL: A Review of Business–University Collaboration, February 2012 University Challenge: How Higher Education Can Advance Social Mobility. A progress report by the Independent Reviewer on Social Mobility and Child Poverty, Rt. Hon. Alan Milburn, October 2012

http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/pe/catalysts/

http://www.hefce.ac.uk/kess/hebci/


APPENDIX: Data collection The aim of this project has been to collect data about public engagement from various sources:

university websites, HEIF strategies (2011) and annual monitoring reports (2014), HEBCI survey data

(2015), with an examination of the successful Catalyst bids (2011). The same search terms and as far

as possible, given the changes in format of the HEIF strategies, have been used for gathering the

data. The LEP designated priority areas have been used for data collection terms for target sectors

for engagement in the HEIF strategies. For the purposes of this, 80 HEIs have been examined:

Anglia Ruskin University University of Cambridge

Aston University University of Central Lancashire

Bath Spa University University of Chester

Birmingham City University University of Cumbria

Bournemouth University University of Derby

Brunel University University of East Anglia

Coventry University University of East London

De Montfort University University of Essex

Durham University University of Exeter

Edge Hill University University of Gloucestershire

Goldsmiths College, University of London University of Greenwich

Imperial College, London University of Hertfordshire

Keele University University of Hull

King's College, London University of Kent

Lancaster University University of Leeds

Leeds Beckett University (formerly Metropolitan) University of Leicester

Liverpool Hope University University of Lincoln

London South Bank University University of Liverpool

Loughborough University University of Manchester

Manchester Metropolitan University University of Northampton

Middlesex University University of Nottingham

Newcastle University University of Oxford

Northumbria University University of Plymouth

Nottingham Trent University University of Portsmouth

Open University University of Reading

Oxford Brookes University University of Roehampton

Queen Mary, University of London University of Salford

Royal Holloway, University of London University of Sheffield

Sheffield Hallam University University of Southampton

Southampton Solent University University of Sunderland

Staffordshire University University of Surrey

Teesside University University of Sussex

UCL Institute of Education University of the Arts, London

University College, London University of the West of England

University of Bath University of Warwick

University of Bedfordshire University of Winchester

University of Birmingham University of Wolverhampton

University of Bradford University of Worcester

University of Brighton University of York

University of Bristol York St John University

These were chosen to give a geographical spread as well as a range of different mission groups. Six

of these HEIs did not have HEIF strategies: Bath Spa; Cumbria; Edge Hill; Winchester; Worcester;

York St John


Terminology

The HEBCI survey refers to BCI – Business and Community Interaction - and therefore data drawn

from this refer to ‘community engagement’ rather than ‘public engagement’. This has been taken to

refer to work with the public outside the university, and to encompass public engagement.

It is worth noting that in some institutions ‘community’ engagement has a more localised and

limited role, e.g. limited to liaising with its immediate community over, say, student

behaviour. Others use it interchangeably with public engagement.

.

Date post:	22-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Final Report Final draft Oct 19 - Public Engagement · This review of websites has been followed by...

Documents